The AI Misinformation Epidemic

Re:The AI Misinformation Epidemic by TuringNYC on Tuesday March 28, 2017 @07:45AM (#13975759)

I'm not saying people should be able to tell the difference, nor am I discounting the value of the final outcome. Just that pitching an app as ML-driven, when it is barely 1% ML-driven is deceptive and mis-informs the public.

Consider taking the side mirror from a Ferrari, putting it on a Ford Escort, and then pitching the Ford Escort as a race-car. The Ford Escort may be a great family car, but it is not a sports car. People who don't know the difference might come to think of it as a sports car, and might even question the wisdom of spending money on a Ferrari.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The AI Misinformation Epidemic by erkkie on Tuesday March 28, 2017 @10:04AM (#13976637)

I get (and perhaps even agree) to the sentiment, logically at least, but realistically all marketing is deceptive. It's pragmatically more useful to understand the how's and why's of that and play along.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The AI Misinformation Epidemic by dragonwriter on Tuesday March 28, 2017 @09:20AM (#13976309)

If that 1% is essential to the purpose of the app, it seems reasonable no matter what % of the code of the app it represents.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The AI Misinformation Epidemic by TuringNYC on Tuesday March 28, 2017 @11:23AM (#13977358)

Going along with my racecar example...the side view mirrors are essential...so does that make the Ford Escort a racecar?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The AI Misinformation Epidemic by dragonwriter on Tuesday March 28, 2017 @11:34AM (#13977470)

The analogy doesn't work, because "racecar" isn't a technology used in the side mirrors.

[ Parent | on HN ]